9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty by the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the charge mentioning, therein, that the police force was not adequate at that point of time as required under the Rules, no follower was posted at the Camp, due to which the petitioner had to cook the meals. On the date of the incident only two Head constables and seven constables were posted at the camp against the required strength of 11 constables. On the said date, the Santry saw 40 to 50 labourers coming towards the camp. The Santry could not understand the motive of the naxalites disguised as labourers, therefore, the Santri did not alert the others nor made any signal or indication of imminent danger. According to the petitioner, the incharge of the camp, who is the Platoon Commander, barely visited the camp and resided at the Chauki, whereas, it was the duty of the Platoon Commander to stay at the camp. Due to the non availability of follower, the mess arrangement was not proper at the camp, therefore, the Platoon Commander was not staying at the camp; had the Platoon Commander being staying at the camp, he would have been the proper person to have taken an appropriate decision at the relevant time. The Enquiry Officer on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. Sanjai Kumar Rai was awarded censure entry for the same allegations. 4. After a lapse of more than 9 months, the second respondent, Inspector General of Police (P.A.C.), Eastern Zone, U.P., Lucknow in exercise of power under Rule 23 of the 1991 Rules issued a notice on 9 September 2009 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the appellate order may not be revised. The revisional authority opined that there was no illegality or infirmity in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, and sufficient material was available on record to establish the charge. The responsibility and allegation in respect of Constable Sanjai Kumar Rai was different from that of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner aggrieved by the show-cause notice, approached this Court in writ jurisdiction (Writ Petition No. 57699 of 2009, which was dismissed on 5 November 2009 directing the petitioner to file a reply to the notice. Pursuant thereof, the petitioner replied on 23 November 2009 reiterating the facts of the incident and the circumstances which had taken the petitioner and other fellow colleagues unawares of the incident, thus, there being no illegality or infirmity in the appellate order. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction as provided under Rule 23 is extracted: "Rule 23-- (1) An officer whose appeal has been rejected by any authority subordinate to the Government is entitled to submit an application for revision to the superior authority next to the authority which has rejected his appeal within three months from the date of rejection of appeal as mentioned below: (a) ................ (b) ................ (c) ................ On such an application, the powers of revision may be exercised only when, in consequence of flagrant irregularity, there appears to have been material injustice or miscarriage of justice; Provided that the revising authority may on its own motion call for and examine the records of any order passed in appeal against which no revision has been preferred under this rule for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such procedure and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit: Provided further that no order under the first proviso shall be made except after giving the person effected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 11. In the case of State of Kerala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application of any aggrieved person, call for and examine the records relating to the appeal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or to the regularity of such procedure and may pass order in respect thereto as it may deem fit. 14. In order to embark upon an enquiry to find out the ambit and scope of the revisional power under Rule 23, extent, scope, ambit and meaning of the terms "legality or propriety" and "regularity, correctness, legality or propriety" will have to be determined. 15. A Constitution Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, was called upon to answer a reference regarding the scope and ambit of the revisional powers of the High Court under various Rent Control Acts. The Supreme Court had the occasion to determine the extent, scope and ambit of the meaning of the terms "legality or propriety" and "regularity, correctness, legality or propriety". The Court held as follows: "29.1. The ordinary meaning of the word "legality" is lawfulness. It refers to strict adherence to law, prescription, or doctrine; the quality of being legal. 29.2. The term "propriety" means fitness; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded by the original authority or the appellate authority can be interfered with by the revisional authority by reappreciating evidence because the revisional authority is not in agreement with the finding of fact recorded by the authority below. Revisional authority cannot reverse the finding of fact merely because on reappreciation of the evidence it has a different view on the findings of fact. 18. I have considered the proposition of law regarding the scope, extent and ambit of "appeal" and "revision". 19. Applying the law in the facts of the case in hand, it is evident that the revisional authority on reappreciating the material available on record, the evidences and statements of the delinquent officials had not recorded as to how the findings of the appellate authority was illegal or improper. The revisional authority had noted in the impugned order that the camp was situated in a naxal area, the petitioner alongwith constable Sanjai Kumar Rai was posted as Guard, at the time of attack they were negligent in defending the camp. The revisional authority disagreed with the appellate authority merely for the reason that the negligence on the part of the petitioner was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y taking upon himself the role of a second authority of appeal which is not permissible under the Rules. 21. It is not disputed by the respondents that constable Sanjai Kumar Rai was also assigned the work of cooking. At the time of the incident he also acted in the same manner as the petitioner, however, a minor penalty was imposed upon Sanjai Kumar Rai, whereas, the petitioner was awarded a major penalty. In respect of other constables, no punishment was imposed upon constable Meraj Ahmad, Rajnath Verma and the Company Commander. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the termination order of constable Bal Bachan and Head constable Rajnath has been set aside by this Court in writ jurisdiction and the writ petition of other constables are still pending. 23. Regarding quantum of punishment in cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment, the Supreme Court relying upon Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P., (2013) 3 SCC 73 and Obettee (P) Ltd. v. Mohd. Shafiq Khan, (2005) 8 SCC 46, laid down the following principles in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372: "19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
